[REFERENDUM] GPLv2 Licensing Intent
A majority vote of the current board members is required for the following matter.
Proposal:
The Board officially states that the Inkscape Project's intention is for the main codebase to be licensed as GPL version 2 or later.
[ ] a. Approve statement that Inkscape is GPLv2+ [ ] b. The board should state a different licensing policy: ____________________________________________________ [ ] c. The board should not state a license intent at this time
Background:
When Inkscape's code was originally written, it was important that it be covered by the GPL. At that time, GPLv3 had not been created, and so version distinctions didn't seem compelling enough to necessitate spelling it out definitively, and thus it generally wasn't. Indeed, it was not uncommon to leave out the boilerplate licensing statements from the code files simply for expediency; the assumption was that placing them in the repository was sufficient for "inheriting" the standard Inkscape licensing.
Over time the project accumulated snippets of code adopted from other projects, some of which had different licensing policies. Generally these were compatible with the GPL license of the codebase, but not always.
Inevitably all of this has led to some developer confusion over exactly what Inkscape's licensing policy is and what it should be. With the added complexity of GPL version 3 (and other permutations such as "GPL v2 only"), it is becoming clear that Inkscape needs to be more precise at tracking the licensing of the codebase, down at least to individual file boilerplates.
An obvious first step is to have a firm decision by the project about what the licensing *should* be, so that all code that is descrepant from that can be addressed, and the codebase brought into compliance through regular development efforts.
Note that this decision will be only for the core codebase itself. Plugins, dependency libraries, and other accessory codebases such as the website, will need to be generally compatible with GPLv2+ (assuming that's what we choose) to the degree that the GPL requires in order for them to link to, or be distributed with, Inkscape, or else Inkscape will be unable to continue using them; however, this board decision is not dictating what the exact license should be for those products, and any adjustments needed to them as a side-effect of this decision are left to their developers to sort out as makes the most sense for them.
Inkscape Board inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net
Vote a. Generally I think that's a good place to start, I think that we should evaluate in the future moving to a GPLv3+ stance as the patent protections would be good for us in the graphics market. But, I think it is better to have a good stance first rather than the the perfect one. Ted On Mon, 2016-01-11 at 18:03 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
A majority vote of the current board members is required for the following matter.
Proposal:
The Board officially states that the Inkscape Project's intention is for the main codebase to be licensed as GPL version 2 or later.
[ ] a. Approve statement that Inkscape is GPLv2+ [ ] b. The board should state a different licensing policy: > > _________________________________________________
[ ] c. The board should not state a license intent at thistime
Background:
When Inkscape's code was originally written, it was important that it be covered by the GPL. At that time, GPLv3 had not been created, and so version distinctions didn't seem compelling enough to necessitate spelling it out definitively, and thus it generally wasn't. Indeed, it was not uncommon to leave out the boilerplate licensing statements from the code files simply for expediency; the assumption was that placing them in the repository was sufficient for "inheriting" the standard Inkscape licensing.
Over time the project accumulated snippets of code adopted from other projects, some of which had different licensing policies. Generally these were compatible with the GPL license of the codebase, but not always.
Inevitably all of this has led to some developer confusion over exactly what Inkscape's licensing policy is and what it should be. With the added complexity of GPL version 3 (and other permutations such as "GPL v2 only"), it is becoming clear that Inkscape needs to be more precise at tracking the licensing of the codebase, down at least to individual file boilerplates.
An obvious first step is to have a firm decision by the project about what the licensing *should* be, so that all code that is descrepant from that can be addressed, and the codebase brought into compliance through regular development efforts.
Note that this decision will be only for the core codebase itself. Plugins, dependency libraries, and other accessory codebases such as the website, will need to be generally compatible with GPLv2+ (assuming that's what we choose) to the degree that the GPL requires in order for them to link to, or be distributed with, Inkscape, or else Inkscape will be unable to continue using them; however, this board decision is not dictating what the exact license should be for those products, and any adjustments needed to them as a side-effect of this decision are left to their developers to sort out as makes the most sense for them.
Inkscape Board inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
I vote A.
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Bryce Harrington <bryce@...2...
wrote:
A majority vote of the current board members is required for the following matter.
Proposal:
The Board officially states that the Inkscape Project's intention is for the main codebase to be licensed as GPL version 2 or later.
[ ] a. Approve statement that Inkscape is GPLv2+ [ ] b. The board should state a different licensing policy: ____________________________________________________ [ ] c. The board should not state a license intent at this timeBackground:
When Inkscape's code was originally written, it was important that it be covered by the GPL. At that time, GPLv3 had not been created, and so version distinctions didn't seem compelling enough to necessitate spelling it out definitively, and thus it generally wasn't. Indeed, it was not uncommon to leave out the boilerplate licensing statements from the code files simply for expediency; the assumption was that placing them in the repository was sufficient for "inheriting" the standard Inkscape licensing.
Over time the project accumulated snippets of code adopted from other projects, some of which had different licensing policies. Generally these were compatible with the GPL license of the codebase, but not always.
Inevitably all of this has led to some developer confusion over exactly what Inkscape's licensing policy is and what it should be. With the added complexity of GPL version 3 (and other permutations such as "GPL v2 only"), it is becoming clear that Inkscape needs to be more precise at tracking the licensing of the codebase, down at least to individual file boilerplates.
An obvious first step is to have a firm decision by the project about what the licensing *should* be, so that all code that is descrepant from that can be addressed, and the codebase brought into compliance through regular development efforts.
Note that this decision will be only for the core codebase itself. Plugins, dependency libraries, and other accessory codebases such as the website, will need to be generally compatible with GPLv2+ (assuming that's what we choose) to the degree that the GPL requires in order for them to link to, or be distributed with, Inkscape, or else Inkscape will be unable to continue using them; however, this board decision is not dictating what the exact license should be for those products, and any adjustments needed to them as a side-effect of this decision are left to their developers to sort out as makes the most sense for them.
Inkscape Board inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
Vote a.
Note that even if most of our codebase is GPLv2+, Inkscape as a whole is technically GPLv3+ for the moment, since it uses a few files from Gimp under GPLv3+. On Jan 11, 2016 18:03, "Bryce Harrington" <bryce@...2...> wrote:
A majority vote of the current board members is required for the following matter.
Proposal:
The Board officially states that the Inkscape Project's intention is for the main codebase to be licensed as GPL version 2 or later.
[ ] a. Approve statement that Inkscape is GPLv2+ [ ] b. The board should state a different licensing policy: ____________________________________________________ [ ] c. The board should not state a license intent at this timeBackground:
When Inkscape's code was originally written, it was important that it be covered by the GPL. At that time, GPLv3 had not been created, and so version distinctions didn't seem compelling enough to necessitate spelling it out definitively, and thus it generally wasn't. Indeed, it was not uncommon to leave out the boilerplate licensing statements from the code files simply for expediency; the assumption was that placing them in the repository was sufficient for "inheriting" the standard Inkscape licensing.
Over time the project accumulated snippets of code adopted from other projects, some of which had different licensing policies. Generally these were compatible with the GPL license of the codebase, but not always.
Inevitably all of this has led to some developer confusion over exactly what Inkscape's licensing policy is and what it should be. With the added complexity of GPL version 3 (and other permutations such as "GPL v2 only"), it is becoming clear that Inkscape needs to be more precise at tracking the licensing of the codebase, down at least to individual file boilerplates.
An obvious first step is to have a firm decision by the project about what the licensing *should* be, so that all code that is descrepant from that can be addressed, and the codebase brought into compliance through regular development efforts.
Note that this decision will be only for the core codebase itself. Plugins, dependency libraries, and other accessory codebases such as the website, will need to be generally compatible with GPLv2+ (assuming that's what we choose) to the degree that the GPL requires in order for them to link to, or be distributed with, Inkscape, or else Inkscape will be unable to continue using them; however, this board decision is not dictating what the exact license should be for those products, and any adjustments needed to them as a side-effect of this decision are left to their developers to sort out as makes the most sense for them.
Inkscape Board inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
When discussed with Bradley from SFC previously he said that if our project is GPLv2+, that including the GPL3 files is not an issue. The situation would be that we are a GPLv2+ project with GPL3 files in it. He said those files being present doesn't change the project license and it's basically only an issue if v# only licenses are used. I can try to dig up those emails I had exchanged with him but I won't have the time to do it until after SCALE.
Cheers, Josh
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Krzysztof Kosiński <tweenk.pl@...119.....> wrote:
Vote a.
Note that even if most of our codebase is GPLv2+, Inkscape as a whole is technically GPLv3+ for the moment, since it uses a few files from Gimp under GPLv3+. On Jan 11, 2016 18:03, "Bryce Harrington" <bryce@...2...> wrote:
A majority vote of the current board members is required for the following matter.
Proposal:
The Board officially states that the Inkscape Project's intention is for the main codebase to be licensed as GPL version 2 or later.
[ ] a. Approve statement that Inkscape is GPLv2+ [ ] b. The board should state a different licensing policy: ____________________________________________________ [ ] c. The board should not state a license intent at this timeBackground:
When Inkscape's code was originally written, it was important that it be covered by the GPL. At that time, GPLv3 had not been created, and so version distinctions didn't seem compelling enough to necessitate spelling it out definitively, and thus it generally wasn't. Indeed, it was not uncommon to leave out the boilerplate licensing statements from the code files simply for expediency; the assumption was that placing them in the repository was sufficient for "inheriting" the standard Inkscape licensing.
Over time the project accumulated snippets of code adopted from other projects, some of which had different licensing policies. Generally these were compatible with the GPL license of the codebase, but not always.
Inevitably all of this has led to some developer confusion over exactly what Inkscape's licensing policy is and what it should be. With the added complexity of GPL version 3 (and other permutations such as "GPL v2 only"), it is becoming clear that Inkscape needs to be more precise at tracking the licensing of the codebase, down at least to individual file boilerplates.
An obvious first step is to have a firm decision by the project about what the licensing *should* be, so that all code that is descrepant from that can be addressed, and the codebase brought into compliance through regular development efforts.
Note that this decision will be only for the core codebase itself. Plugins, dependency libraries, and other accessory codebases such as the website, will need to be generally compatible with GPLv2+ (assuming that's what we choose) to the degree that the GPL requires in order for them to link to, or be distributed with, Inkscape, or else Inkscape will be unable to continue using them; however, this board decision is not dictating what the exact license should be for those products, and any adjustments needed to them as a side-effect of this decision are left to their developers to sort out as makes the most sense for them.
Inkscape Board inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
On Mon, 2016-01-11 at 18:03 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
A majority vote of the current board members is required for the following matter.
Proposal:
The Board officially states that the Inkscape Project's intention is for the main codebase to be licensed as GPL version 2 or later.
[ ] a. Approve statement that Inkscape is GPLv2+ [ ] b. The board should state a different licensing policy: _________________________________________________ ___ [ ] c. The board should not state a license intent at this time
a.
I agree with Ted that we should evaluate moving to GPLv3+ in the future.
Background:
When Inkscape's code was originally written, it was important that it be covered by the GPL. At that time, GPLv3 had not been created, and so version distinctions didn't seem compelling enough to necessitate spelling it out definitively, and thus it generally wasn't. Indeed, it was not uncommon to leave out the boilerplate licensing statements from the code files simply for expediency; the assumption was that placing them in the repository was sufficient for "inheriting" the standard Inkscape licensing.
Over time the project accumulated snippets of code adopted from other projects, some of which had different licensing policies. Generally these were compatible with the GPL license of the codebase, but not always.
Inevitably all of this has led to some developer confusion over exactly what Inkscape's licensing policy is and what it should be. With the added complexity of GPL version 3 (and other permutations such as "GPL v2 only"), it is becoming clear that Inkscape needs to be more precise at tracking the licensing of the codebase, down at least to individual file boilerplates.
An obvious first step is to have a firm decision by the project about what the licensing *should* be, so that all code that is descrepant from that can be addressed, and the codebase brought into compliance through regular development efforts.
Note that this decision will be only for the core codebase itself. Plugins, dependency libraries, and other accessory codebases such as the website, will need to be generally compatible with GPLv2+ (assuming that's what we choose) to the degree that the GPL requires in order for them to link to, or be distributed with, Inkscape, or else Inkscape will be unable to continue using them; however, this board decision is not dictating what the exact license should be for those products, and any adjustments needed to them as a side-effect of this decision are left to their developers to sort out as makes the most sense for them.
Inkscape Board inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
On Mon, 2016-01-11 at 18:03 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
A majority vote of the current board members is required for the following matter.
Proposal:
The Board officially states that the Inkscape Project's intention is for the main codebase to be licensed as GPL version 2 or later.
[ ] a. Approve statement that Inkscape is GPLv2+ [ ] b. The board should state a different licensing policy: ____________________________________________________ [ ] c. The board should not state a license intent at this time
b. The board should state an intent to use GPLv3 or above, with an understanding there will be transition.
Additional: The website code is AGPLv3, content is GPLv2+/CC-BY-SA
Martin,
Background:
When Inkscape's code was originally written, it was important that it be covered by the GPL. At that time, GPLv3 had not been created, and so version distinctions didn't seem compelling enough to necessitate spelling it out definitively, and thus it generally wasn't. Indeed, it was not uncommon to leave out the boilerplate licensing statements from the code files simply for expediency; the assumption was that placing them in the repository was sufficient for "inheriting" the standard Inkscape licensing.
Over time the project accumulated snippets of code adopted from other projects, some of which had different licensing policies. Generally these were compatible with the GPL license of the codebase, but not always.
Inevitably all of this has led to some developer confusion over exactly what Inkscape's licensing policy is and what it should be. With the added complexity of GPL version 3 (and other permutations such as "GPL v2 only"), it is becoming clear that Inkscape needs to be more precise at tracking the licensing of the codebase, down at least to individual file boilerplates.
An obvious first step is to have a firm decision by the project about what the licensing *should* be, so that all code that is descrepant from that can be addressed, and the codebase brought into compliance through regular development efforts.
Note that this decision will be only for the core codebase itself. Plugins, dependency libraries, and other accessory codebases such as the website, will need to be generally compatible with GPLv2+ (assuming that's what we choose) to the degree that the GPL requires in order for them to link to, or be distributed with, Inkscape, or else Inkscape will be unable to continue using them; however, this board decision is not dictating what the exact license should be for those products, and any adjustments needed to them as a side-effect of this decision are left to their developers to sort out as makes the most sense for them.
Inkscape Board inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 06:03:07PM -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
A majority vote of the current board members is required for the following matter.
Proposal:
The Board officially states that the Inkscape Project's intention is for the main codebase to be licensed as GPL version 2 or later.
[ ] a. Approve statement that Inkscape is GPLv2+ [ ] b. The board should state a different licensing policy: ____________________________________________________ [ ] c. The board should not state a license intent at this time
I vote
A.
Bryce
Background:
When Inkscape's code was originally written, it was important that it be covered by the GPL. At that time, GPLv3 had not been created, and so version distinctions didn't seem compelling enough to necessitate spelling it out definitively, and thus it generally wasn't. Indeed, it was not uncommon to leave out the boilerplate licensing statements from the code files simply for expediency; the assumption was that placing them in the repository was sufficient for "inheriting" the standard Inkscape licensing.
Over time the project accumulated snippets of code adopted from other projects, some of which had different licensing policies. Generally these were compatible with the GPL license of the codebase, but not always.
Inevitably all of this has led to some developer confusion over exactly what Inkscape's licensing policy is and what it should be. With the added complexity of GPL version 3 (and other permutations such as "GPL v2 only"), it is becoming clear that Inkscape needs to be more precise at tracking the licensing of the codebase, down at least to individual file boilerplates.
An obvious first step is to have a firm decision by the project about what the licensing *should* be, so that all code that is descrepant from that can be addressed, and the codebase brought into compliance through regular development efforts.
Note that this decision will be only for the core codebase itself. Plugins, dependency libraries, and other accessory codebases such as the website, will need to be generally compatible with GPLv2+ (assuming that's what we choose) to the degree that the GPL requires in order for them to link to, or be distributed with, Inkscape, or else Inkscape will be unable to continue using them; however, this board decision is not dictating what the exact license should be for those products, and any adjustments needed to them as a side-effect of this decision are left to their developers to sort out as makes the most sense for them.
Inkscape Board inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 06:03:07PM -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
A majority vote of the current board members is required for the following matter.
Proposal:
The Board officially states that the Inkscape Project's intention is for the main codebase to be licensed as GPL version 2 or later.
[ ] a. Approve statement that Inkscape is GPLv2+ [ ] b. The board should state a different licensing policy: ____________________________________________________ [ ] c. The board should not state a license intent at this time
Votes: Bryce Harrington a Josh Andler a Tavmjong Bah a Jon A. Cruz Ted Gould a Krzysztof Kosiński a Martin Owens b - Prefer transition to GPLv3+
Resolution:
The Inkscape Project should seek to ensure the main codebase is redistributable under the GPL version 2 or later at this time.
Background:
When Inkscape's code was originally written, it was important that it be covered by the GPL. At that time, GPLv3 had not been created, and so version distinctions didn't seem compelling enough to necessitate spelling it out definitively, and thus it generally wasn't. Indeed, it was not uncommon to leave out the boilerplate licensing statements from the code files simply for expediency; the assumption was that placing them in the repository was sufficient for "inheriting" the standard Inkscape licensing.
Over time the project accumulated snippets of code adopted from other projects, some of which had different licensing policies. Generally these were compatible with the GPL license of the codebase, but not always.
Inevitably all of this has led to some developer confusion over exactly what Inkscape's licensing policy is and what it should be. With the added complexity of GPL version 3 (and other permutations such as "GPL v2 only"), it is becoming clear that Inkscape needs to be more precise at tracking the licensing of the codebase, down at least to individual file boilerplates.
An obvious first step is to have a firm decision by the project about what the licensing *should* be, so that all code that is descrepant from that can be addressed, and the codebase brought into compliance through regular development efforts.
Note that this decision will be only for the core codebase itself. Plugins, dependency libraries, and other accessory codebases such as the website, will need to be generally compatible with GPLv2+ (assuming that's what we choose) to the degree that the GPL requires in order for them to link to, or be distributed with, Inkscape, or else Inkscape will be unable to continue using them; however, this board decision is not dictating what the exact license should be for those products, and any adjustments needed to them as a side-effect of this decision are left to their developers to sort out as makes the most sense for them.
Inkscape Board inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
participants (6)
-
Bryce Harrington -
Josh Andler -
Krzysztof Kosiński -
Martin Owens -
Tavmjong Bah -
Ted Gould